9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... livered in VAT Appeal No.113 of 2007. 2) That Appeal has been placed before the Tribunal because of a controversy between the Petitioners and the Department of Sales Tax. The Petitioners filed application seeking the intervention of the authorities under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 styled as Determination Application. The authority's power under section 52 of that Act was invoked to seek determination as to whether return of kerosene without N-parafin by the Petitioner No. 2 to the Petitioner No.1 amounts to return of goods. The Commissioner of Sales Tax made an order or rendered his decision on 14th March, 1996. Aggrieved by that order, the parties approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal delivered its verdict on 21st April, 2001. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an Appeal styled as Second Appeal on 31st August, 2007. That Appeal was belated and therefore, an application for condonation of delay being Miscellaneous Application No. 291 of 2007 came to be filed. Objections were raised to this Appeal on the point of maintainability as also on limitation. 4) The detailed written objections and reply thereto was considered and the Tribunal passed an order dismissing the Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra as not maintainable. That order dated 30th June, 2008 was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 4098 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ Petition, concluded that the Appeal was maintainable, but kept open the issue of limitation and directed the Tribunal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to the authority of the officer to present the Appeal was equally serious and therefore on both questions the findings of the Tribunal require deeper scrutiny by this Court. The Writ Petition be therefore admitted. 8) Mr. Nalawade, the Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the matter has a checkered history. The present Writ Petition is nothing but an attempt to delay the adjudication of the Appeal on merits. The State's Appeal is pending and with large and heavy revenue implications. In such circumstances, this Court should not entertain the Writ Petition at this stage and which Writ Petition challenges the preliminary findings. 9) Upon a query from us to both learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and answer by this Court, request that the findings on the above two questions also raise questions of law and they may be referred for opinion and answer of this Court. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and it would be open for both parties to raise them and at a appropriate stage before the Tribunal. 12) We are also of the opinion that the matter should not be kept open before the Tribunal on the point of stay. considering the checkered history, we expect the Tribunal to dispose of the pending Appeal as expeditiously as possible and on or before 31st January, 2015. Only in the event the Tribunal is unable to dispose of the Appeal within this period that it will permit the State to revive its app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
